Tribe.net. Local Connections Michael http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#710fb29a-3cb5-4612-b552-f47695fd5f56 2009-06-07T06:22:18Z 2009-06-07T06:22:18Z

Upon further reflection, I think my speculation that power budget between the 5D and the 1D series could matter. Here are some specification differences. 5D Mark II, LP-E6 battery: 7.2V DC, 1800 mAh capacity. 1D Mark III, LP-E4 battery: 11.1V DC, 2300 mAh capacity. This is a seriously different power regime: For the LP-E6, the capacity is 7.2 V x 1.8 Ah = 12.96 Wh. For the LP-E4, the capacity is 11.1 V x 2.3 Ah = 25.53 Wh The LP-E4 has pretty close to ~2x the Watt-hour (Wh) capacity of the LP-E6. I can definitely attest to the LP-E4. I've done several shows now with the 1D Mark III, where I got more then 10000 shots off a single charged LP-E4 battery, even including occasional LCD previewing. Blessings and Light, M

Michael 2009-06-07T06:22:18Z Michael http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#7c60b5c8-e984-4cf4-9557-41a5410bc3fd 2009-06-07T05:56:51Z 2009-06-07T05:56:51Z

Brad, I actually use One Shot AF most often, not AI. I don't like AI as well, because (on the 1D Mark III) it doesn't highlight any AF indicators, to let you know what it thought was the correct AF location. However, I have done whole shows with AI AF, and didn't have a bad result. Like you, I prefer to tell the camera what to do, not let it think so much for me ... the question is how to do this? Some notes and retroreflection follow. I quickly found the 5D Mark II user manual, to see what more I could learn about it's AF system. I was looking to see if there was Control Function that could be modified to help your situation, but I don't think so; your original post was spot-in. I think the fundamental problem is that the 9-point diamond is just insufficient, even with the 6 "hidden" assist points is just br0ken. I'd have to agree. This was exactly the issue really hurting me with the 20D. In your workflow, the additional problem is not merely that the 9 points are insufficient, the coverage is just plain wrong for typical scenes you want to compose, driving the Select AF around using the multicontroller. I do feel your pain, I used the hell out of my 20D trying to lock on moving subjects, to the point the multicontroller use became unconscious, even if taxing. A particular problem if you have to work a distance is having to move the camera and long (as in "heavy") telephoto lens, in order to recompose get any kind of lock ... all because the points cover so little of the frame. In further researching this topic, I did randomly find user complaints in other forums. Everyone was happy with the 5D Mark II imaging system, but there were some users who did not like the AF system and speed of response. An anecdotal comment would be things such as a user's 40D or 50D was a much faster camera ... Now, the 1.6X FoV on a 40D or 50D does make a difference compared to a FF camera. I think that even with the 6 assist points though, the 5D Mark II just has too little coverage in the frame for it's AF sensors. It's a compromise, basically. On the 45-point ellipse for the 1D Mark III, this ellipse is larger than the 9-point diamond on the 5D Mark II, though of course it is center weighted as you point out. I did want to mention though that the 1D Mark III has Control Functions that allow you to limit in several ways the number of AF points involved. For example, so you can more effectively use the multicontroller to do Select ADF. This situation cannot make the ellipse any larger, but it could mean less fuddling through numerous points (by having fewer to select from). So, this mechanism would assist what I understand to be your workflow, and the larger coverage might be helpful, but the coverage you have with your new AF design would of course be nicer. Blessings and Light, M

Michael 2009-06-07T05:56:51Z Brad http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#b1737ebf-a10a-4768-8a8b-33419f44f02a 2009-06-07T05:06:37Z 2009-06-07T05:06:37Z

I'm certainly not wed to 9 focus points (or even the 13-points I proposed). I was trying to come up with a system that fit the abilities of the current 5D product line. I have no problem with a 1D with 45, 54 or 450 focus points. Whatever the system allows. My problem is with the spacing. If a camera with even 45 focus points had them distributed in a less center-clumped manner, that would seem to be a good thing. As to your comment, "...in order to have very good autofocus coverage for fast action in low-light, you absolutely have to have more focus points tightly clustered together," I suppose that depends on your shooting technique. I believe you are a practitioner of the AI-Servo or AI-Focus approach and if that works for you, great. That is not my workflow when shooting. My current technique centers on extensively using the multi-controller to track my subjects in the composition and I get the results I like. I've tried the other approaches and they simply don't deliver the consistent results I seek. More clustered focus points would make my technique unwieldy. In this case, less is more; but those points should be logically placed and not just clumped in the middle of the screen. Whether or not any camera warrants the "professional" label is irrelevant to me. I would shoot with disposable cameras if the product suited my needs. Actually, with the price gap between the low-end and the high-end of Canon's product line, one practical approach might be to opt for a revolving door of less-sturdy camera bodies in lieu of a single pricier "pro" camera; image quality and workflow being the same as it increasingly is. I really appreciate all your insight into this matter (and all the others you've generously shared with this tribe), Michael!

Brad 2009-06-07T05:06:37Z Michael http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#5ef467c1-be09-4602-b35e-2111d4f1efbf 2009-06-07T03:19:06Z 2009-06-07T03:19:06Z

Brad, On the 45 points for the 1D series, except for the issue of the proportion of frame area covered (a valid complaint), IMHO they work immensely better than the 9-point diamond configuration. The 45 points are much tighter together, and they work much faster; again this is likely due to the faster processing power affordable to a machine footprint with more battery power. I truly like the location of your new focus points, and it would help for configuration the composition a lot more flexibily, in terms of outlying areas of the frame. Wish that were possible. At the same time, doing that would also cause me a lot more headache than even the 9-point diamond would. This is because your point locations would greatly increase the gap distance between points. This was the anathma of the 9-point diamond: huge gaping holes, esp. when photographing belly dance troupes. But, it was even a problem for solo dancers. By contrast, the 45-point system, while limited to perhaps 1/3 of the frame area, works significantly better because the gap distance between points is relatively small. I would submit the argument that this is preferable in an autofocus system for fast action, because as subjects moving within the frame, a smaller amount of time is necessary to do detection of movement. If the focus points are farther from each other, then more time is required to read the scene for light/dark/light object boundaries that could indicate movement. Just for the record, and it's only my opinion ... but while not wanting to annoy anyone who has sunk their hard-earned cash into a 5D or 5D Mark II, I do not consider these cameras to be professional cameras. I am not saying they are completely unusable in professional applications, because the imaging system is rather compelling, esp. for the 5D Mark II's price point. Aside from issues like build quality and longevity, in order to have very good autofocus coverage for fast action in low-light, you absolutely have to have more focus points tightly clustered together. One could argue this is a possible defect in the 5D Mark II: not having a stronger autofocus system for a full-frame 21 mpixel DSLR. But I don't think that can be done with the power available in a 5D footprint. Blessings and Light, M

Michael 2009-06-07T03:19:06Z Michael http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#4c9e7af8-5889-469e-9218-acabf620e382 2009-06-06T23:24:46Z 2009-06-06T23:24:46Z

Some discussion on this topic also appeared on photo.net: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SXzx

Michael 2009-06-06T23:24:46Z Brad http://DigitalSLR.tribe.net/thread/c7108e82-e0bb-4452-aaf8-14860c16d11e#2e835123-4406-4b9c-a49a-d87f9dee4cfc 2009-06-06T21:13:02Z 2009-06-06T21:13:02Z

I mentioned this issue in passing in my note of the 5D Mark II video firmware update but felt it needed it's own discussion... The positioning of the focus points in the otherwise-spectacular 5D Mark II is severely broken. Perhaps fatally so. Clumped together in a small lump in the middle of the viewfinder, they are essentially worthless for focusing on moving action while composing shots on the fly. If you shoot stationary objects, this likely is little more than a mere nuisance to you. But I can't believe this isn't a deal breaker for everyone else. Granted, you could take your chances on the auto-finding focus (or whatever Canon calls it) or use one of the tracking mode and hope that it makes the right jump from point to point, but if you shoot action in low-light (such as sports or performance) and care exactly where the focus is set, this system is indelibly broken. In the previous discussion, Michael Baxter astutely explains that the positioning is fixed in the hardware (no firmware upgrade possible) and is a leftover from the previous cropped screens of the XX-D series of Canon prosumer cameras (where the diamond pattern covered a much more significant portion of the screen). He went on to explain why this necessitated his migration to Canon's pro-level X-D series of cameras. But I don't buy this. While the X-D's viewfinder may have more focus points (9 vs 45), they are not grouped significantly better. Once again, they are all clumped in the middle third of the screen, where they don't work for better composition. Actually, the original 9-point layout from the modest XX-D series' APS-C viewfinder does a much better job of covering the screen real estate than either of these (wildly more expensive) "pro" options. I've posted an image of the viewfinders for both the 5D and the 1D with the focus points (cribbed from DP Review) in this tribe's gallery at http://digitalslr.tribe.net/photos/d913f1da-1f07-4b52-bf7a-1f03879434a0 and added my take on where the focus points should logically be placed. I've included 4 "corner" points at the quarter-screen marks (shown in red), 4 "diamond" points cheated out slightly from the mid-points between the "corner" points (shown in white), and finally a smaller box of third-screen points (shown in yellow). I even included a traditional center point, even though that's usually the worst place to center the focus of any image. If Canon's bothering to produce a camera with the impressive abilities of either the 1D or 5D series, it seems they could be bothered to create a focusing system suited to professional photographer's needs and not just inherit some system laying around the lab from a previous generation.

Brad 2009-06-06T21:13:02Z